Standard Sacred Text: A Two Front Argument

In making the Standard Sacred Text argument we defend two positions, one leading to another. The first position is meant to defend the proposition that a standard sacred text is better for the English-speaking Church touching unity. Though we may disagree on certain points of theology and church polity we can certainly agree on the Bible from which we ought to derive our theological conclusions.

And this unity would not simply be for a single denomination but would also be a unity across generations. Multiple generations of Christians would share in the same language and terminology that their fathers and grandfathers shared in. With this common language and terminology multiple generations of commentary and study helps would also be “standardized” in that they derive their material from the same standard sacred text.

For example, it is our belief that the Southern Baptist Convention would be more united and stronger if it would accept as a matter of doctrine the Christian Standard Bible as the standard sacred text of the SBC. Such a stance would be better for the convention as a whole and for the people that are a part of that convention. The SBC then would not be gathering around a denomination or ecclesiastical celebrity or even the Baptist Faith and Message. The SBC would be gathered around and united in a standard sacred text upon which the SBC denomination, sermons of the celebrity, and Baptist Faith and Message are built. Not the other way around.

The SBC is one denomination. The celebrity pastor is one man. The Baptist Faith and Message is one document. It stands to reason then that the SBC would stump for one Bible, a standard sacred text, in order to found the SBC as one denomination and the Baptist Faith and Message as a standard confessional baptist document. Else, it seems reasonable that the SBC have multiple versions of the Baptist Faith and Message having multiple additions and omissions as well as varying readings and terminology. They certainly allow it in God’s standard for faith and message why not allow such variation in the Baptist standard for faith and message?

This leads to our second front which asks, “What English translation should be the standard sacred text not just of the SBC but of the English-speaking Protestant Christianity as a whole?” If denominations where to accept a standard sacred text for their respective denomination, the Church overall would be better off, but for all English-speaking Christians to all have the same sacred text in English would be better still. In our truncated and simplistic example, debates would ensue about which version of the Bible ought to the be the standard sacred text.

This of course is the main difference from current discussion. Few are willing to accept a standard sacred text for themselves let alone their home, church, or denomination. But if that were the case, then we could have discussions about which one ought to be the one standard sacred text for the one bride and body of the one Christ in English-speaking ecclesiastical communities.

If and when that debate ensues we here at will make our arguments for why the TR/KJV should be that standard sacred text for the English-speaking Church. Until which time we will continue to engage in this two-front argument in preparation for that day. Blessings.

2 thoughts on “Standard Sacred Text: A Two Front Argument

  1. Relative to your comments on a standard sacred text for the SBC, it’s an interesting inconsistency that among the proof texts found in the Baptist Faith and Message in support of the Doctrine of God/Trinity is 1 John 5:7, a verse that is missing from the CSB (and most other modern versions). This is what Van Til called operating on borrowed capital.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: